Equifax as just confirmed over the phone that the companies that searched the above file, would have seen all the information held within that Credit File (in other words, financial the lot).

Ive been in touch with this outfit Regal Credit Consultants Ltd. This was their reply: These Credit Referencing Agency searches are a process controlled by Equifax. We have escalated your complaint to them, and will let you know the outcome once we receive a response.

Equifax have no knowledge or record an think Regal Credit Consultants Ltd are insinuating that Equifax undertook the searches on behalf of Regal Credit Consultants Ltd.

Sparkie - I thought you might just be interested in this story. I am going to post it on the news story bit anyway but, there is a particular relevance to your story. It involves a lady whose daughter has had a judgment entered against her by Bryan Carter for a debt which is not hers. Here is the link to the story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/art...bt-threat.html

Perhaps the interesting section from your point of view however is why Bryan Carter thought that it was ok to go after this lady's daughter, here is the relevant quote

"This is the latest in a growing list of complaints against debt collectors who pick on the wrong person, but it is rare for a case to get to court and then for the judgment to be enforced against an innocent person who happens to share the debtor's name.

I asked Bryan Carter & Co to explain how it linked your daughter in Derbyshire to the debtor in

The firm told me it used tracing agents who found that your daughter and the debtor had the same name and date of birth, so assumed they were the same person.

This alone should not have been enough. Your daughter's name is not unusual. But the agents spotted that another creditor had already checked up on your daughter, and to them, that clinched it.

The solicitors told me: 'In effect, we have been put in a position where we have relied indirectly on the activity of another creditor.'

They accept that they should have taken seriously your daughter's protests that she knew nothing about the debt and they have agreed to have the court judgment set aside. "

Hope this helps

Bel
x

__________________E-mail addresses are now available to all members at a cost of £5.00 per year. Please PM tamadus for details

Please do not be offended if I have to edit out derogatory words or statements from your posts. Sometimes, this is necessary to protect the poster and the site from retaliatory action

This is how I ended up with a CCJ against my name. we were in Barbados when all this happened and my passport proved it could not have been me, because at the time the debt was incurred we never lived in England. When I proved this I was told I had to pay £75.00 to get the judgement removed. i thought that was insult to injury so I let it stay there and then had a note added to my CRA files stating what had happened.

Never got an apology out of the firm concerned ot the DCA. Shame it is past Statute of Limitations becaue knowing what I know now, I would have gone for the jugular with both the Firm and the DCA. The creditor was a stationery company

The ICO believe Regal Credit failed to comply with the first principle of the DPA. Basically Regal Credit should of removed the searches from the file once they knew they had traced the wrong person.

But here's the catchy bit, Regal Credit informed me (in writing) Equifax would not allow them to remove the searches.

Equifax stated to me (in writing), searches for outstanding debts stay on file for a minimum of 6 years. The ICO says 2 years. And given the wrong person has been searched, the searches should of been removed, end of.

The ICO never even looked into the complaint I filed about Equifax (how convenient, they must think I'm a thicko), they tied in it with the Regal Credit one. This was done to protect Equifax in my opinion, they do not want to state Equifax failed to comply with the fourth principle of the DPA, they wanted to pin it on Regal Credit instead.

The ICO have to now re-open my complaint against Equifax, because I have everything in writing.

The ICO just can not admit they protect the likes of Equifax, when will they grow the balls to protect the Data Subject and stop blaming everything on the companies who supply the information and carry out or request searches to be carried out.

This subject has been raised on Money Box and how the CRA's react when notified about incorrect information being posted on a person's file. It was also pointed these are commercial entities and not sanctioned. they need to be more closely regulated and react more favourably when notified of an incorrect information.

I can see us marching on Parliament and making our representatives do their job and listen, then act to tighten the regulations regarding the CRA's.

__________________Please remember we will edit posts that contain derogatory remarks, to protect the Site and the poster from retaliatory action by the banks et al.

Proud member of CFC The more I learn about terrorism, the more I understand Banks, Credit Card Companies and DCA's Advice & opinions of Dragonlady and the Consumer Credit Support Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. I can only speak from MY experience and how I have handled my claims. If you have any doubts please seek the opinion of a qualified solicitor

My posts are not to be published anywhere else without my express permission

If we have helped you reclaim your charges please consider a 5% donation to the site. All donations, large or small will help us to continue to help others.

The ICO says: it appears Equifax have not taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of he information held on the credit file. Therefore it appears likely they have failed to comply with the fourth principle of the DPA.

Also searches for 'Outstanding Debt' should only remain on an individuals file for a maximum of two years as six years is considered to be excessive.

This is how I ended up with a CCJ against my name. we were in Barbados when all this happened and my passport proved it could not have been me, because at the time the debt was incurred we never lived in England. When I proved this I was told I had to pay £75.00 to get the judgement removed. i thought that was insult to injury so I let it stay there and then had a note added to my CRA files stating what had happened.

Never got an apology out of the firm concerned ot the DCA. Shame it is past Statute of Limitations becaue knowing what I know now, I would have gone for the jugular with both the Firm and the DCA. The creditor was a stationery company

HIya Matey ,

There is a way past the Limitations Act now .....most people haven't cottoned on yet and the way is Section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act The Unfair Relationship.

There is no time limit for claiming an unfair relationship existedit doesn't just cover credit agreements and Banks it covers Estate Agents Landlords ..Accountants etc etc and other professionals will cover CRA's there is a relationship between you and the CRA without any doubt.